Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2010 July 11

= July 11 =

help me out to choose best engineering branch.
please help me out to choose best engineering branch in term of scope in industries and highest salary offered? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.254.0.121 (talk) 02:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You need to expand on your question a little more. Where are you searching? Chevy  monte  carlo  06:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Aerospace engineers are said to be the best paid.--Quest09 (talk) 12:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It can be said, but chemical engineers bring in more $. Googlemeister (talk) 14:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It appears that the OP is from India. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 14:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Engineers in the mining industry get paid a *lot* in Australia, though they often have difficult work. Steewi (talk) 04:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Another colourblindness question


Are these hay bales or straw bales? The photographer is obviously confused, as "hay" appears five times (including the name), while "straw" appears twice and the image is used to illustrate Straw bale. I think that it's straw, but I can't be sure, since I have trouble seeing green. Nyttend (talk) 04:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The trouble with distinguishing hay from straw by color alone is that the greenish tinge that indicates "hay" fades rapidly from the surface of the bale resulting in stuff that's still perfectly good hay - but is the exact color of straw. But having said that, I'm pretty sure this is straw from the look of the field it's sitting on.


 * I agree that the upper photo is of straw bales, deduced from the appearance of the stubble in the field. The lower one is more difficult but from the fineness of the stalks I would say it is hay. They are both of a very similar colour, with no hint of green in the hay photo. Caesar&#39;s Daddy (talk) 06:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

how to know what photo is it?

 * i have a photo and i wnt to know what or whose photo is it? how to find it, isnt there a photo searching engine.. thanx--Myownid420 (talk) 04:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * TinEye (at http://www.tineye.com) is one such search engine. However, they don't seem to index very many pictures so it's not a really great solution.  I have been using the "Google Goggles" service on my Android phone - it does a pretty good job with things like company logo's and such - but for some bizarre reason they don't offer that to mainstream computer users. SteveBaker (talk) 04:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Flickr? Someone maybe have uploaded a copy there... Chevy  monte  carlo  06:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * IF it is machine readable, then searching the name online may give a clue, also the dimensions in the google iamge search can narrow it down a lot. Also check out the EXIF data to see if there is any clue. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Ask.com is good for finding images by their file name, at least the UK version is. 92.15.3.130 (talk) 11:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

democracy and nation
why is nation given more priority over democracy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.248.64.218 (talk) 07:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please expand your question. As it stands this sounds like a homework question that relies on the context of the assignment. --mboverload @ 07:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It sounds like a homework question which implies a rather nationalistic answer. A more honest version would be: "which one has priority: nation or democracy? And why?"--Quest09 (talk) 12:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Indian Nationalism? ~ A H  1 (TCU) 14:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

"POSTED"
In the US -- I have no idea about anywhere else -- one often sees signs such as "POSTED - NO TRESPASSING". Why that word "posted"? If the sign is up, then it's posted; is there some protection that "POSTED" provides that the two simple words "NO TRESPASSING" would not provide? --jpgordon:==( o ) 15:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * That's legalese - basically it says "Not only is trespassing prohibited, but this is a publicly posting of the fact that trespassing is prohibited." This prevents trespassers from going to court to say that they didn't know they were trespassing and are thus innocent. Legally, without the 'posted' bit, trespassers could technically claim that they did not no it was a public sign that they were supposed to pay attention to.


 * Of course, no one would get away with that defense in court, but legal beagles do not give a lot of credulity to pragmatism and common sense. -- Ludwigs 2  16:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Why would NO TRESPASSING provide a potential trespasser with less knowledge than POSTED NO TRESPASSING? --jpgordon:==( o ) 16:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * have you ever had any dealings with lawyers?    -- Ludwigs 2  16:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Quite a bit. Why would NO TRESPASSING provide a potential trespasser with less knowledge than POSTED NO TRESPASSING? Is there case law regarding this? To me, it seems more like greengrocer quotes than legalese. --jpgordon:==( o ) 17:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not a lawyer - if it's that important to you, I suggest you find one. I'm just pointing out that minor, trivial details of language are often the difference between winning and losing a legal battle.  -- Ludwigs 2  17:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * people come to the ref desk for information, not speculation. --jpgordon:==( o ) 20:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * GIGO   -- Ludwigs 2  15:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Again and again on these desks, posters respond to legal questions with stuff they just MAKE UP. It is absolutely, completely, utterly, totally, superlatively incorrect that "you didn't know you were trespassing" is a defense against a civil action for trespassing. PLEASE STOP MAKING THINGS UP WHEN ANSWERING LEGAL QUESTIONS. Why is it that when the subject is LAW (as opposed to physics or the movies or computers or sports or almost anything), posters think they can just answer with whatever weird bullshit has somehow ended up in their brains after a lifetime of half-interested vague attention and TV watching and "common sense" reasoning that in no way diminishes ignorance? [restoribng post of three days ago that was deleted] 63.17.32.95 (talk) 08:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * What happens in the US of A if you do trespass? I suppose, being the US of A, that its perfectly legal to have bullets fired at you. 92.15.3.130 (talk) 16:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * lol - no. guns can only be legally used where there is a credible threat against your person - trespassing does not in and of itself constitute a reasonable threat.  I mean, you could point a gun at me if I trespassed, but actually pulling the trigger would land you in a mess of hot water.


 * Trespassing in most places is a misdemeanor or infraction (depending on context). you can get anything from a stern warning to a mild fine to a few days in jail in the worst cases.  trespassing isn't usually prosecuted in and of itself  - it's usually just ticketed (that's what will happen if you trespass on government property like protected marshes) - but most of the time that people are concerned about trespassing they are actually concerned about more serious offenses like burglary, breaking and entering, stalking, and are posting the signs as a warning that they are on guard. -- Ludwigs 2  17:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Re: deadly force related to trespassing, it varies state by state. See Castle doctrine. Some states have very, very low thresholds of when you can use deadly force against a trespasser. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Those "very low thresholds" are [in every state I've ever examined] someone breaking into your house (not land, not barn) with the intent to commit a felony. Other states might go further. Shadowjams (talk) 07:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Some years ago an englishman knocked on the door of a US house asking for directions, and got shot dead. Charming. 92.29.123.193 (talk) 23:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That needs a: Shadowjams (talk) 07:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It was on the national UK TV news, so likely to be true. 92.29.122.49 (talk) 11:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've just spent some time browsing various state laws. Some go into great detail about requirements for posting land -- meaning, for making clear that unauthorized entry is not allowed (for example, the Montana annotated code).  I haven't found any that require the word "posted."  My hunch (and it's only that) is that the word "posted" drifted onto signs as a result of people talking about posting no-trespass signs.  I posted the signs, my land's posted, so it should say "posted."  That usage seems like a kind of private-property folklore.
 * Note that in the U.S., in most places, there are two kinds of trespass, civil and criminal. The latter typically involves willful entry against the express intention of the owner (he's told you to stay out, he's posted signs) as well as willful entry into a structure or place obviously meant to exclude such entry (locked doors, gates, and so on). --- OtherDave (talk) 12:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Note that in Texas, you can basically shoot someone who trespasses, even if they don't pose a threat to you.


 * Here in Texas, all that is required to post "No trespassing" is a splash of purple paint! For the very large areas that some people need to enclose in large ranches, etc, the cost of putting up proper signs is deemed to be too large - so the law says that all you need to do is to paint a splodge of purple paint onto a tree or a post!    SteveBaker (talk) 15:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not think That's ridiculous and untrue. Show me that law. Shadowjams (talk) 07:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thought so. 92.28.252.50 (talk) 21:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, that's not the law and that's an absurd conclusion. Talk about offensive stereotypes. Shadowjams (talk) 04:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The link that SteveBaker gave about purple paint contains links to Texas Penal Code, Article 30.05 and to Texas Statutes 2001. Unfortunately both gave me only HTTP 404 Not Found but someone else may find another workable link. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 01:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * See also our article on a teenage Japanese student who was shot dead in Louisiana for knocking on the wrong door:
 * Yoshihiro Hattori was a Japanese exchange student residing in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, United States at the time of his death. Hattori was on his way to a Halloween party and he went to the wrong house by accident. The property owner, Rodney Peairs, mortally wounded Hattori with gunfire, thinking he was trespassing with criminal intent. The controversial homicide, and Peairs' subsequent acquittal in the state court of Louisiana, received worldwide attention.
 * BrainyBabe (talk) 17:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You'll note there was a trial. Shadowjams (talk) 04:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Initially, the local police quickly questioned and released Peairs, and declined to charge him with any crime. They felt that "Peairs had been within his rights in shooting the trespasser." Only after the governor of Louisiana and the New Orleans Japan consul general protested, did Peairs get charged with manslaughter." Someone else was killed in the same way shortly afterwards. These doorstep killings deserve an article. 92.15.9.213 (talk) 09:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think cherrypicking a few cases and synthesizing an article to reinforce your stereotypes about America is a good use of our time. We already cover a myriad of issues involving gun politics in the U.S. in the appropriate places. If there's something to be added do it there. Shadowjams (talk) 19:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * PLEASE would RD contributors STOP bullshitting about legal questions? Again and again and again and again and again and again, people think it's perectly OK to just MAKE THINGS UP and PULL ANSWERS OUT OF THEIR BUTTS when answering LEGAL questions.  Trespassing has NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER YOU DO OR DO NOT KNOW THAT YOU ARE TRESPASSING.  Yes, I'm shouting -- so is it CLEAR?  The intent required for civil trespassing is simply to go onto land that is not yours and that is not public.  If you think it's yours or you think it's public, it doesn't matter.  You are an actionable defendant in a trespassing civil action simply for going onto someone else's property.  Period.  PLEASE STOP MAKING THINGS UP WHEN THERE'S A LEGAL QUESTION. 63.17.32.95 (talk) 08:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Combat knives
Why are combat knives like this one so expensive? --Belchman (talk) 18:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Because there are enough people out there with more money than brains to make the price justifiable. PhGustaf (talk) 20:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The combat knife is one of a range priced from $152.95 to $599.95. To me they don't seem that different but I am not a knife collector. An indicator that these small-volume Italian "Extrema Ratio" knives are intended to have status value is that one in the range is called "Reventon Lamborghini Folding Knife", a tradename that the Lamborghini car company does not rent out cheaply. The same company offers comparable knives without the same status or specification for $12 to $50. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Clarifying a bit: This artifact seems aimed at the same market as is the Pfeifer_Zeliska_.600_Nitro_Express_revolver. It's not more useful as weapon as are ones at a tenth the price, but it's really good for waving around and showing off to your friends. PhGustaf (talk) 23:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * In other words, they carbonized the blade by plunging the still-glowing blade into the crap of prized Yemeni bulls. or something like that... -- Ludwigs 2  15:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * They are not just any prized Yemeni bulls but prized Yemeni bulls born of special cows that have never been enclosed with barbed wire in order to provide Rolls-Royce car seats with virgin leather that has never been pricked. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)